Methodology

How we select, structure, and analyse the case law in the CaseTag database. Transparency in our editorial process.

Sources

CaseTag draws on official primary sources for all case law included in the database. We monitor the following sources regularly:

⚖
EUR-Lex
The official portal for EU law, providing access to judgments of the CJEU and General Court, as well as Commission decisions.
🏛
Curia (curia.europa.eu)
The Court of Justice of the European Union's own case law database, used for the most recent judgments and opinions.
📋
European Commission Decision Register
Commission decisions on competition cases (antitrust, mergers, state aid), and DMA enforcement actions.
📄
National Court Decisions
Selected national judgments that are significant for the development of EU competition law or the application of the DMA and EU tech regulation.

Case selection criteria

Not every case is included. CaseTag prioritises decisions that contribute to the development of legal doctrine. We apply the following criteria when deciding whether to include a case:

Doctrinal significance. Does the case establish, refine, or depart from a legal principle? Cases that merely apply settled law to routine facts without adding to the jurisprudence are generally not included.

Practical relevance. Is the case likely to be cited by practitioners, referred to by courts, or relied upon by the Commission in future enforcement? We prioritise cases that working lawyers and academics actually need to know.

Regulatory importance. For DMA and EU tech regulation cases — which are still emerging — we apply a lower threshold and aim to include all significant enforcement actions and judgments, given the novelty of these frameworks.

Editorial principle: We would rather have a smaller database of genuinely important cases with thorough analysis than a large database of every case with superficial coverage. Quality of curation is our primary commitment.

Master File structure

Each case in the database can have a Master File — a structured case note designed to give the reader a complete understanding of the decision and its significance. The Master File follows a fixed six-section format:

Section 1
Facts
The factual background of the case — what happened, who was involved, and what the relevant market context was.
Section 2
Issues
The legal questions referred to the court or argued by the parties. What was actually in dispute.
Section 3
Held
The court's ruling — the operative outcome of the case, stated concisely.
Section 4
Reasoning
The key steps in the court's legal analysis — how it got from the question to the answer.
Section 5
Legal Principles
The doctrinal contribution — what this case establishes as a matter of law that extends beyond its facts.
Section 6
Significance
Expert commentary — how the case fits into the broader landscape, its implications for future enforcement, and any open questions.

The first five sections aim to be objective and faithful to the judgment. The sixth section — Significance & Commentary — is where editorial analysis and expert assessment are provided.

Doctrinal mapping

CaseTag's correlation system tracks two types of relationships between cases:

Concept threads group cases that belong to the same doctrinal line. For example, Hoffmann-La Roche, Intel, and Post Danmark II all belong to the "AEC Test Evolution" thread. These threads allow users to trace how a legal principle developed chronologically across multiple rulings.

Manual links connect individual cases with specific relationship notes — such as "distinguished on facts", "departed from the per se approach", or "applied by analogy". These capture the nuanced ways in which cases relate to one another that a simple subject-matter grouping cannot.

Both types of correlation are assigned editorially based on analysis of the judgments themselves, not generated automatically.

Updates and corrections

The database is updated regularly as new decisions are published. We prioritise landmark judgments and fast-track their inclusion with preliminary Master File analysis. Routine updates follow as capacity allows.

If you spot an error in any case record — whether factual, analytical, or typographical — please notify us at support@casetag.eu. We take accuracy seriously and will correct verified errors promptly.